Warning: Voting for for Obama means you are also voting to OK the Afghanistan and Pakistan wars which Obama has tripled, as well as voting to OK the senseless killing of thousands of innocent civillians in both countries, as well as thousands of soldiers on both sides.

Some Democrats may not be telling you this when they suggest you support Obama. __________________________________

SPACEBROTHER says he does not consiously vote to escallate wars,

he also regularly gives pro-Obama voting advice,

which implys that a vote for Obama is not a vote to escallate wars,

but that is not true because has Obama greatly escallated wars,

he tripled the futile and harsh on innocents Afghan and Pakistan wars.

But SPACEBROTHER doesn’t tell you about Obama’s evil and futile Afpak war escallations because he wants you to support Obama.

He knows about the war escallations but he just talks about the road projects and ‘other good things’ he believes he will get from Obama.

SPACEBROTHER knows thousands of soldiers have died. He also knows thousands of our innocent brothers have been killed by US fire in BOTH Afghanistan and Pakistan since Obama took over as commander-in-chief. He even knew of Obama’s planned huge escallations of the Afpak wars and tripling of the Predator/Hellfire drones before he voted for him.

Voting to kill thousands of our innocent brothers doesn’t slow down SPACEBROTHER’s war voting advice; he just denies he’s voting for war escallations, and goes on trading the escallation of injustice and heartbreak of thousands of innocent lives, for what he believes will be road projects and jobs.

It troubles me to have war voters in the forum telling people to vote to kill thousands of my innocent brothers, while not telling about that dirty littlewar tripling part of his pro-Obama advice.We have too many war voters in this country. We have wars exactly because they keep voting for wars.

So I questioned him on his outright denial that he votes to escallate wars.

And he hasn’t come up with an answer yet...

…yet he goes on giving advice he knows will escallate the senseless killing of our innocent brothers.

He shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that.

Did anyone notice that he hadn't answered the question yet?

He shouldn’t be allowed to get away with not answering the question that he knows exposes his voting for escallated killing of literally thousands of innocents, just by launching a snowstorm of attack that makes everyone so sick of the chatter that they no longer care if he answers the question.

Sucessfully evading the question shouldn’t be credited as an answer, rather it should be recognized as proof of a lost argument.

Someone should stand up for our innocent brothers when those around us are telling us we should vote to support the escallation of their killing. Someone should stand up and say ENOUGH WAR VOTING. STOP WAR VOTING. JUST STOP VOTING FOR THE GOD DAMN WARS.

During a discussion about Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan, and tripling of Obama’s civillian-harsh drone/Hellfire strikes in Pakistan our friend SPACEBROTHER claimed:

SPACEBROTHER wrote:

Do I consciously and morally vote to escallate wars?No.

Not only during his campaign was Obama talking about massively escallating the Afghan war, but by the time the above statement was made, Obama's war escallation from 33, 000 US troops to 100, 000 US troops (plus 50, 000 "contractors") into Afghanistan was well underway, as well as both the Pakistani and Afghan governments had reported thousands of innocents killed by US fire in both countries, (mostly from our Predator/Hellfire drone strikes).

It's difficult to know how someone could be aware of these things, yet continue to give pro-Obama voting advice while maintaining that he “does not consciously and morally vote to escallate wars.” If you know about Obama’s escallations and give advice to vote for them, then you ARE consciously voting for war escallations.

So I challenged his position with the question:

baddy wrote:

On your support for Obama when you know about his huge escallation of the Afpak wars and the associated escallation in the killing of innocents in these wars...how do you reconcile that with your statement that you "don't consciously vote to escallate wars." You know of Obama's escallations of the Afpak wars...how do you support Obama and his war escallations if you don't consiously vote to escallate wars.

Please explain that.

Please explain how you support Obama and vote for Obama's war escallations if you don't consciously vote to escallate wars?

Please don't give me any other questions or Ron Paul attacks until after you kindly answer the question.

It's a question that can't be answered. It goes to the key weakness to SPACEBROTHER’s pro-Obama pro war escallation position: if one believes he is going to get road projects and other economic improvements from Obama, then one has to be willing to trade away a lot of innocent lives to get them. Cause, then look the other way to the killing of thousands of innocents, to get road projects and jobs, the SPACEBROTHER Democrat way.

I think most people are NOT willing to make this tradeoff, so this post serves to warn about it. This post can be bumped when SPACEBROTHER is recommending voting for Obama without telling about the hidden payload of futile war escallation and killing that also comes with this voting advice. Using this thread in this "bump mode" I hope we will also cut down on a lot of distractive chatter that could occur if I were to go into the posts where SPACEBROTHER’s pushing Obama and try to restart an argument that has already occurred, (it would just get smattered with distractions again)...I can simply bump the thread, say, "Hey, is SPACEBROTHER recommending voting for the for nasty wars again," and be done with it, (and hopefully any chatter that comes can go into this thread and be kept out of others).

It should be mentioned that SPACEBROTHER has also said he thinks the Afghanistan war is justified. You may or may not feel that way, (I feel it's illegal, immoral, hate and heartbreak producing, hyper-costly, and futile). I don’t think this is an answer, though it might imply something about his answer to the question.

Suffice it to say for this post (I will go into it more in the next post), that SPACEBROTHER has not yet answered the question, hence has not defended his claim that he does not consciously vote to escallate wars. I say of course an Obama vote has already proved to be a war tripling pro war vote. I also say that pro war escallation voting is bad. Bad, bad, bad.

…if someone wants to verify the argument referred to above about my attempts to get SPACEBROTHER to answer the question,

OR, if someone wants to see what someone may do when they are given a challenge to the foundation of their position which they cannot answer, (counter attack and chatter).

OTHERWISE, THIS POST DOES NOT NEED TO BE READ....AND I HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT YOU DON'T.

Basically, I asked a direct question of SPACEBROTHER and many different things came back in leiu of an answer.

What generally came back were repeated Ron Paul attacks, long lists, asking of alternative questions (can’t answer a question - just keep asking counter questions), multiple claims that he had already answered the question, multiple claims that I had not answered a question that I had already answered, finally degenerating into misleading personal attacks and ridicule …at which point I ended my attempts to try to get SPACEBROTHER to answer the question, the forum was getting snowbound…

…and the question was still not answered.

So I’ve gone over SPACEBROTHERS “answers,” pretty much in order, and provided a brief synopsis of each, and a brief statement of why each response is not an answer to the question.

Then the next post in this thread will be quotes (correspondingly numbered), that support the following synopsis of SPACEBROTHERS “answer” to the question.

Again, the question was basically:

baddy wrote:

On your support for Obama when you know about his huge escallation of the Afpak wars and the associated escallation in the killing of innocents in these wars...how do you reconcile that with your statement that you "don't consiously vote to escallate wars." You know of Obama's escallations of the Afpak wars...how do you support Obama and his war escallations if you don't consiously vote to escallate wars.

Please explain that.

Please explain how you support Obama and vote for Obama's war escallations if you don't consiously vote to escallate wars?

1. I originally asked the question in May in the thread where we were discussing Obama’s Afpak war escallations, but there was never any response, so I reasked the question recently.

2. SPACEBROTHERS first "answer"on this page in the 13th post down, was to talk about gas prices and jobs and blame republicans, then he cited a Taliban atrocity as making it difficult not to support military action. None of which of course are an answer to the question of how he can say he does not consiously vote to escallate wars while he supports Obama who has escallated the Afpak wars.

3. Although the discussion and questions are on Obama's Afghanastan and Pakistan war escallations, SPACEBROTHER answered here in the 2nd post down that he believes the war in Iraq will be ending in a year, and that the Iraq war is not escallating. Answering a question about Obama's Afghanastan and Pakistan war escallations with an answer about Iraq is not an answer to the question.

In answer 3 came more republican and Ron Paul attacks (which are also not an answer to the question), as well as a question for me on RP campaign donations. I answered this question that RP voted against the initial war invasion authorization bills, and against every war money appropriation bill since, (the opposite of what war profiteering companys want him to do), while Obama has been not only voting for the war appropriation up-funding bills while he was a Senator, but he has also tripled the Afpak wars since he took over as commander-in-chief.

Here is the difference between anti-warcandidates such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, compared to the pro-war Obama's and McCains of the world. We need candidates such as DK and RP who will not only vote against invasions, but also consistantly vote to defund and end the wars.

To which SPACEBROTHER responded that he suspected Ron Pauls's NO votes meant nothing and were only a trick to get other Republicans elected...to which I responded that Congressmans votes mean everything, that the whole point is to get Congressmen who will vote NO on invasions and wars, and furthermore, the Congressional vote is the prize that lobbiests are going for.

In that no answer to the original question was in that Ron Paul chatter, I reasked the original question.

4. SPACEBROTHER again posted his lists and stated that RP's Congressional NO votes on the wars and wars funding meant nothing, (which again is just a restatement, and not an answer to the original question).

He then went on to say he's answered the question seven times already, (does anyone see any answers to it?), and he said that he feels the war in Afghanastan is justified, (and that also is not an answer to the question, though may be a factor in OKing the loss of innocent civillians in some peoples minds).

He also went on to ask me to again answer the question I already answered in #3 about RP and his votes against the wars and war funding bills. I'd already answered RP was voting against what the war profiteering companys wanted, (they want him to vote FOR war funding, that’s their jackpot, not against it every time). In that this is just a repeat RP attack and not an answer to the question, I did not answer it again.

If you notice, we STILL haven't gotten an answer to the original question...maybe you're not supposed to notice that, worse, maybe you're supposed to blame me for half of this unnecessary chatter...none of which would have been necessary if SPACEBROTHER had just answered the original question in the first place.

6. In the 11th from the bottom on this page,SPACEBROTHER stated again that he'd already answered my original question, and now it was my turn to answer one of his repeat questions where he again repeated his RP attack that I'd already answered in #3 above, and challenged me to answerer it again. Again, not an answer, so I did not take the bait.

I reminded SPACEBROTHER that I understoof he felt the Afghanastan war was justified, but that that that wasn't the question, (8th post up from the bottom).SPACEBROTHER next degenerated into personal ridicule of me, posting pictures of sheep, (actually, I'm amazed at his obedience to the Democratic party over the years, even to the point of repeatedly doing their war bidding (voting) for them).I answered his personal ridicule sheep picture with the Thomas Jefferson quote: "Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." Personal ridicule is of course just an attack, and not an answer to the question, (according to the Jefferson quote, it's what you do when you can't answer with rationality).

8. Again SPACEBROTHER accused me of not answering his question about RP’s campaign donations that I answered directly in #3 above. There was no answer to my single, original question.__________________________________________

Then arrcee posted something interesting that I'd like to comment on because it's important to why I'm going through all this.

arrcee wrote:

baddy wrote:

Huck_Phlem wrote:

I'm so sick of this...

Me too, it's amazing what asking one little one sentence question will generate....and he still has not answered it.

Be the bigger (and better) person by moving on.

I am not a religious person, but sometimes the bible can contain wisdom. Here's one for all of us:

"Go from the presence of a foolish man when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."-Proverbs, 14:7

Or, in other words, don't waste your time arguing with an idiot.

Especially when you are giving him the attention he craves

Arrcee, because I object to SPACEBROTHER coming in here recommending people keep voting for the damn wars, and because his position is the very reason we have wars. I wish to prove out the moral pitfall of his war voting one time. It’s fairly irrelevant if he answers the question or not, it just needs to be abundantly clear that he has been given ample opportinuty to answer, so that the fact that he has not answered the moral question becomes known.

I can also bump this thread when SPACEBROTHER is in here recommending voting for more wa. It’ll be unnecessary to restart this argument at the beginning every time, rather this thread will show the whole lost argument in one easy bump.

Also, SPACEBROTHER won’t be able to tell people to vote for Obama’s road projects without them finding out about all the little "bombing secret" he is not telling them about.

SPACEBROTHER has so far failed to defend the challenge to the foundation of his pro-Obama, pro-war voting advice.

SPACEBROTHER later claimed he has answered the question 450 times, I don’t see any answers at all, I just see spam. A few times I suggested SPACEBROTHER just copy and paste one of his claimed previous answers to the question... but that has not happened either.

So apparantly there is not an answer to the question coming.

He has not backed up his position.

SPACEBROTHER says he does not consiously vote to escalate wars, yet he votes for and pushes for Obama whom he knows greatly escallates wars.

Is it better that folks know about that when he tells them of the wonders of voting for Obama.

Obama is a bad war president, just like his predecessors.

We gotta stop voting for these creeps.

We gotta stand up for our brothers, those who's US/Obama imposed tragedy is real, although we're not allowed to see it.

Just say no to war.

Everybody does that, and the wars end...(and a ton of other stuff gets dramatically better too).

THIS POST IS ONLY NECESSARY SOURCE INFORMATION THAT BACKS UP THE SYNOPSIS ABOVE IN POST #2 OF THIS THREAD.

I have added comments to make it more clear, but as reference material, this post does not need to be read.

If I had put all this source information into the synopsis above of SPACEBROTHERS non-answers, it would have become too long to read, (one of the main goals of the spam defense).

The “answer numbers” below go with the numbers in the post above.

1. He never responded so I can't quote him here._________________________________

2. (There is no answer to the question here).

SPACEBROTHER wrote:

Greetings Baddy. Been a little while. I have always found your posts interesting and informative. I even agree with a lot of them if not all.

In regards to rejecting Obama...

During the Bush/Republican control era, we were losing an average of 750,000 jobs per month. Now we are gaining jobs, something that never happened under Bush (or any Republican in recent histroy for that matter).

In regards to gasoline prices, currently $2.59 (and dropping steadily) per gallon here in Michigan, between $4.50-$5.00 on Bush's watch. Thats a no-brainer.

In regards to war. I agree that it's a lose/lose situation and should only be an option when all others options have failed. On the other hand, it's hard to just sit back while Right Wing religious fanatics execute 7 year old children. It's stories like this that makes it quite a bit more difficult not to support some sort of military action.

I'm not to the point of rejecting Obama as of yet.

________________________________

3. (There is no answer to the question here either because the question is about voting for war escallations in Afghanastan and Pakistan, there are no escallations in Iraq).

SPACEBROTHER wrote:

The war in Iraq is ending in under a year because of Obama. That's not an escalation, thats an end to a war started by the Bush family with complete Republican control of the gov't.

__________________________________

ANSWER 4, (Lol, no I'm not going to quote SPACEBROTHERS second posting of the long lists that occurred here, that issue has already been addressed in the synopsis of #3 above).__________________________________

5. (This is also not an answer to the question, it's just anoter RP attack and had already been answered on the synopsis of #3 above).

SPACEBROTHER wrote:

Baddy. You mean to tell me that you still support Ron Paul while knowing he accepted campaign contribution blood money from war profiteering corporations?

Then although you can see he has not yet answered the question even once, he went on to say:

SPACEBROTHER wrote:

I'll answer your question once again (for the seventieth time). I was always against the war in Iraq but believe the Afghanistan/Pakistan War is justified.

…which is still not an answer to the question.__________________________________

6. (still not an answer to the question)...

SPACEBROTHER wrote:

I answered yours. Your turn.

Are you ready to denounce Ron Paul knowing that he accepts blood money from war profiteering corporations (such as Haliburton) and American job killing bailout money (such as Goldman Sachs)? Does his (k)no(w) votes matter knowing he profits from the blood of innocents and the unemployed?

(Boy, I'd love to talk about Obama and Goldman Sachs, but I didn't go for the bait in talking about something else instead of the fact that SPACEBROTHER still has not answered the question).____________________________

7. (just a personal attack of ridicule, definitely not an answer to the question)…

SPACEBROTHER wrote:

Baddy is just another one of the....

To which I answered with the Thomas Jefferson quote:"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us."

8. (This is not an answer to the question either, it’s just asking me again to answer the question I already answered in #3 above).

SPACEBROTHER wrote:

I'm merely asking you a question Baddy. You say...

Baddy wrote:

I should be able to ask the question that is the core weakness of the pro-war democrat voting philosopy...I should be able to ask about the key weakness of his pro-war voting shouldn't I? The core weakness of his position shouldn't be off limits to ask about should it?

...then refuse to answer a question that challenges a "core weakness in your own voting philosophy".

SPACEBROTHER wrote:

Do you denounce Ron Pauls acceptance of money from war-profiteering corporations

Then for the third time SPACEBROTHER accused me of calling him lame even though he knows I never called him lame, (but at least this time he said “paraphrase” instead of “quote” so he’s only trying to mislead the readers a little.

…and all of this for trying to get an answer to one question:SPACEBROTHER, how do you get off saying you don’t consiously vote for war escallations if you vote continue to support Obama and his war escallations?

…and then SPACEBROTHER again tried to lead everyone into thinking I called him lame, again, even though he knows I did not. He wrote: “I guess everyone who disagree's with Baddy is Fucking Lame".

So as one can see from the above clutter, there is no answer to the question, nor do I feel SPACEBROTHER is going to come up with a defense for his pro-Obama, pro-war escallation voting advice.

Let the taker of SPACEBROTHERS pro-Obama voting advice beware, the payload of the Obama vote is more futile war and killing, including many innocents who die without a reason. SPACEBROTHER cannot answer a challenge about that, and he is likely not be telling you about that in his pro-Obama advice, I think because he knows it would scare a lot of people away from voting for Obama.

Now SPACEBROTHER can’t come in here talking about voting and supporting the escallation of killing of our brothers overseas without folks being aware of the PRICE of his voting advice…if he won’t tell ya, I will.

We have wars because most of the voters are hellbent to keep voting to continue and escalate them.

As tempting as it is to create a new thread entitled "The Pro-War Yes Votes Ron Paul Supporters Don't Want You To See" about how Baddy completely dodges answering a simple question because he fears I'm setting him up for some kind of trap, but I won't go there and waste my own precious time and energy. I will continue to play along here though so........

So I questioned him on his outright denial that he votes to escallate wars.

And he hasn’t come up with an answer yet...

He shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that.

Did anyone notice that he hadn't answered the question yet?

He shouldn’t be allowed to get away with not answering the question....

To get back to Baddy's statements above.

I not only showed Baddy the courtesy of answering his question (repeatedly), I requested the same courtesy by presenting him with my own question. Simply, he didn't like my answer nor question back to him. This led to a pathetic (now) 4 thread parlay (maybe more will be created later to avoid giving back the same courtesy I showed him).

I see this as a common defensive posturing mechanism among persons who dish it out but can't take it. Sad really.

Baddy is avoiding answering my question by claiming that I'm trying to set him up in a "trap" (his own word).

*5/28/10 Vote 320: H RES 1391: Congratulating Israel for Its Accession to Membership in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development RP's vote=Yes

**H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid. RPs vote=Yes

I think Baddy is avoiding my question because....

If Baddy answers YES, he denounces Ron Paul, he'll realise that his campaign contributions to him, support and everything he posted favorable of him over the years will all be for nothing. Perhaps a pride issue.

If Baddy answers NO, he will not denounce Ron Paul, then it will show that every anti-war post he has ever made here is pure hypocracy.

Another non answer question can easily be assumed that his answer is a resounding NO, meaning Baddy refuses to denounce Ron Paul despite knowing his phony no on war spending votes mean nothing when he voted yes on Vote 320: H RES 1391 while at the same time, RP accepts money from and passes legislation that favors known war profiteering corporations like Haliburton, BP and economy killing Wall Street beneficiaries of bailouts like Goldman Sachs as in the donor list here http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C ... 32914.html.

So in Baddy's own words to avoid the gratious return of common courtesy I showed him....

Who gives a shit what Ron Paul voted for? He's a politician...he might vote this way or that for various reasons.

What he represents is another way of thinking, however. His campaign is more about ideas than promises. You might not agree with his ideas, but you can be pretty sure that it would be a new ball game if he was pitching.

I know of one at least outspoken donor who refuses to answer a simple YES or NO question.

A Rope Leash wrote:

What he represents is another way of thinking, however. His campaign is more about ideas than promises. You might not agree with his ideas, but you can be pretty sure that it would be a new ball game if he was pitching.

I know of one at least outspoken donor who refuses to answer a simple YES or NO question.

That's a lie. Many times I have stated my support for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader. Many have seen me support these folks before. What Part of "I support Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader don't you understand?

Especially RP and DK who both speak against and voted against the invasion authorizations and voted against all the war up-funding bills, (while your man Obama voted for all the war up-funding bills). RP and DK have hands down the strongest anti-war voting records in all of Congress...It's interesting to me that you cannot tell the difference between the strongest anti-war voting records in Congress, and Obama's mirror opposite Pro-war upfunding voting record, (plus he has clearly tripled the Afpak wars). The strongest anti-war voting record in Congress and you accuse him of being pro war, while you back Obama, the war voter, war tripler.

It's odd that you knock RP as being pro-war with his strongest in Congress antiwar voting record, while you push war voter, war tripler Obama. Maybe thats what happens when you listen to too much Democrat propaganda? Are you still listening to Air America?

Dear forumers,

I highly recommend you don't read this post because the method that SPACEBROTHER is trying to get away with is to avoid answering my key question by throwing out an explosion of distraction to get people to be so sick of seeing his snowstorm (or even get people to blame me for debunking some of it), that he successfully gets away from answering the one key question I have asked, (that he cannot answer).

So it's not necessary to read this post; this post is only to service SPACEBROTHER:_____________________________________

Well, SPACEBROTHER, again you have claimed to have already answered the question:How can you claim you don't vote for war escallations when you voted for and continue to support Obama who has greatly escallated (tripled), the Afghan and Pakistan wars.

If you have already answered it, then again I'll challenge you: please copy and paste the answer in because I haven't seen any answer. Claiming you have answered a question multiple times, answering other questions that were not asked, giving me repeated questions to answer, or attacking RP or me personally are all not answers to the above question.

So if you say you've answered it, I'm calling you on it, I say you haven't. All I see is spam about other things. Prove me wrong with a simple copy and paste, I say you can't do it because you are bullshitting about having answered that question before, there is nothing to copy and paste.

You voted for, and continue to support the great war escallator Obama, yet you say you don't vote to escallate wars. If both those facts are true (and they are), then that is hypocracy. I figure I ought to give you benefit of doubt and give you an opportunity to answer to defend yourself, but the answer has to go to the question, it can't be RP or baddy attacks, or answers to other questions that were not asked.

Actually I no longer give a shit if you answer it or not, your non answer is answer enough, it's enough for the forum to see you "charged" with hypocracy about voting for and supporting Obama and his killing of thousands of innocents, and failing to defend yourself, (they haven't seen an answer either). Besides, arrcee is right with his proverb advice, you are not going to answer the question.

So, I can warn people when you tell them to vote for Obama but don't tell them about the nasty war escallating, thousands of innocent civillian killing, part of your pro-war voting advice.

As long as they know, as long as you can't trick them into voting for Obama's wars without somebody telling them what you are leaving out.

My beef is you tell people to vote to kill thousands of my innocent brothers abroad without telling them about the killing part of your voting advice...and now I can just bump this thread to warn them about what you didn't tell them.

(Huck, that is actually the primary reason for this thread).____________________________________

And now, since we're in a dedicated thread that you can spam as much as you want and it won't fuck up other threads...

As claimed before, I did answer your multi-repeat question about supporting Ron Paul. Not only will I answer it again now, but I will also copy and paste one of my previous answers, and post a link to it to show where I answered it before. I will also answer about those stupid bills you put in that are supposed to be RP pro-war bills, were you hoping people wouldn't look them up?

Perhaps in return you will also copy and paste where you supposidly answered the voting/supporting for Obama and his Afpak war escallations while you claim to not consiously vote for war escallations uestion?

____________________________________

This is what I wrote before when SPACEBROTHER was again repeating to ask me about my RP support...the same question again and again in the Breaking News thread.

Although it was written last week for the breaking news thread but I didn't post it beacuse the answer to the explosion of SPACEBROTHERS "question evasion spam" is of course spam.

But seeing it's still coming, maybe this'll stop it, (or at least get SPACEBROTHER to post some new question evasion spam).

From last week, but not posted:

Dear forum,

I'm really sorry to have to do this, but I've stayed off the forum for more than week but SPACEBROTHERS baddy and RP attacks just keep on coming, (lol, I think I created a snow machine when I asked SPACEBROTHER how he gets off claiming he doesn’t vote to escallate wars while at the same time he voted for and supports Obama and his tripling of the Afpak wars).

So dear forumers: I VERY STRONGLY RECOMMEND JUST SKIPPING RIGHT OVER THIS ENTIRE POST.

Meanwhile, I will try to take care of our spam problem, I don’t know if it will help, I think not. I rather think arrcee’s proverb post is likely true,…but I will answer this question again so it’s more difficult for SPACEBROTHER to assert that I have not answered it…then as he promised, maybe we’ll see an answer to my question on his denial that he votes for war escallations while he votes for Obama’s war escallations.

If the snowstorm rages on after I’ve answered his question again, well then let it snow.

*5/28/10 Vote 320: H RES 1391: Congratulating Israel for Its Accession to Membership in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development RP's vote=Yes

**H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid. RPs vote=Yes

I've already answered this that I support Ron Paul (and Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader), and I've already commented why. In that I'm getting big capital letters to answer it again...I guess I'll have to answer it again...

I've commented that Ron Paul's and Dennis Kucinich's consistant NO voting on the invasions, and constant NO voting on all of the wars up-funding bills since, (while SPACEBROTHERS war tripling Obama voted opposite Kucinich and Paul, voting yes on all the war up-funding bills, and now as commander in chief is actually the one creating the war problem that RP and DK and the rest of us have to constantly fight), along with Ron Paul's (and DK’s) constant and famous denouncing of the wars and wars funding are two of the strongest antiwar voting records in the House, and they’re the reasons that I will continue to support Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

So yea, I support Ron Paul. Is there any part of that that you don’t understand?

There, I answered your question...again...

Is there any need for you to ask again?

So to refresh you on when I answered this before:

I know you said Ron Paul's solid NO votes to the invasions and to all the up-funding war bills mean nothing, but I say we need a Congress full of representatives who will speak out against, vote against, and consistantly vote to defund the wars.

Not all people agree with you SPACEBROTHER that Congressmens NO votes against invasions and up-funding mean nothing, I corrected you that Congressmens votes are the prize of the lobbiests, that Congressmens votes mean everything, and furthermore, RP's constant NO votes to the invasions and ALL of the wars up-funding bills pretty much shoots holes in your case that I should reject him as being on the take to war profeteering companys as he and DK have the strongest voting records against the wars in all of Congress. War profiteering companys need all YES votes to wars and war up-funsing as Hillary and Obama give them, not solid votes against the wars and war funding ad RP and DK give them.

You also said you "suspect" RP's votes against the invasions and wars up-funding are a trick to get other Republicans elected...how far will you stretch over to reach that straw? (Lol, I remember when you reached so far as to say supporting RP was pro war because people attack abortion clinics and that is pro-war).

I rather think this is just bullshit generated by a pro-war, pro-Obama, "Democrat can do no wrong," die hard that needs to come up with some distraction as he's been asked to explain how he says he doesn't consiously vote to escallate wars yet voted for and continues to support Obama who mega-escallates wars, (tripled the Afghan war from 33, 000 to 100, 000 troops, and tripled his so harsh on innocent civillians Pakistan drone/Hellfires).

So, although you've accused me of not answering it 10 times since I last answered it, NO, I do not denounce Ron Paul, nor his or DK’s strongest antiwar voting records in Congress.

I also don't want to let SPACEBROTHER divert me off track with the things he writes instead of answering the immorality question, (I promised him I'd answer all this other stuff later, but I'm all done being diverted for the moment), but fraught with problems is this latest diversion, not the least of which is the bottom line, if someone like RP got in and ordered the wars closed, then this whole discussion about coprorate doners to the DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN partys becomes moot. The purpose of war companys giving money is to buy the politicians vote...but if politicians such as Kucinich and Paul consistantly vote against wars, then it's clear that this latest diversion is also a moot point.

Yes, it DOES matter when politicans in Congress vote against the wars, that is exactly the bottom line. I also believe you are wrong when you say that Congressmens votes against wars don't matter, and I think a lot of people would agree with me.

If the majority in congress voted as Kucinich and Paul vote, (or if either of them were elected President, the wars would have ALREADY been over). They are commander in chief, they order troops home, they come home, and there is nothing in this world that can stop that.Some politicians vote in favor of corporations and against the people in order to keep the money coming in...some politicians (kucinich and paul), vote AGAINST what the corporations want with complete disregard for what the corporations want.

The proof of what I say is in the pudding:

You see, if most or all politicians spoke voted as RP and Kucinich against the authorizations and repeated re-fundings of these wars...then the war interests would stop trying to buy the votes of the Democrat and Republican partys because it wouldn't be working for them...another proof that congressman's voted DO matter...they give money to both partys to buy votes, they don't give money to politicians as people do, out of patriotism and a desire for a better country. Aparently, there are a few people left that still don't understand this.

It's sad to see these good politicans defeated by the money every time, the wars and all this suffering truly would have been over years ago, (and prosperity would have of course returned as well....we are in the grips of the money, and THEY make out like kings, not US.

Are ya happy now SPACEBROTHER? There's two answers to your question...now maybe you'll answer my one question on how you get off saying you don't consiously vote to escallate wars when you voted for and continue to support Obama, a TRIPLER the civillian harsh Afpak wars.

OK now, Let’s have a look at those two bills SPACEBROTHER keeps throwing in my face as some hypothetical RP pro-war bills…I don’t see anything pro-war about them at all, (and I think it’s a little absurd coming from a pro-war voter who says the Afghan war is justified), In the first one, HR 1391, there’s nothing war-like about it. It’s simply a customary statement that was unamously voted for (in the house), 435 to 0, to recognize Israels entry into OECD. Both Palestine and Israel need to be welcome participants in the world commutity, it is the “Zionist regime” that afflicts the Israeli government I have a problem with, not the Israeli people. It’s a worldwide organization of I think up to about 100 countries now who collect ideas and aconomic data for distribution in the hope that pooling ideas will lift up people in jobs and education. The OESD mission statement:

OECD wrote:

Our missionOECD brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to:

Support sustainable economic growth Boost employment Raise living standards Maintain financial stability Assist other countries' economic development Contribute to growth in world trade

The Organisation provides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies.

OECD also shares expertise and exchanges views with more than 100 other countries.

In May 2007, OECD countries agreed to invite Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia to open discussions for membership of the Organisation and offered enhanced engagement to Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa. While enhanced engagement is distinct from accession to the OECD, it has the potential in the future to lead to membership. The approval of so-called "road maps" marked the start of accession talks with Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia.

Chile became a member of the Organisation on 7 May 2010.

On 10 May 2010, the OECD invited Estonia, Israel and Slovenia to become members of the OECD. Each country’s membership will become official once necessary formalities, including parliamentary approval, have been completed.

For more than 40 years, OECD has been one of the world's largest and most reliable sources of comparable statistics and economic and social data. As well as collecting data, OECD monitors trends, analyses and forecasts economic developments and researches social changes or evolving patterns in trade, environment, agriculture, technology, taxation and more.

PublishingOECD is one of the world’s largest publishers in the fields of economics and public policy. OECD publications are a prime vehicle for disseminating the Organisation's intellectual output, both on paper and online.

Publications are available through OLIS for government officials, through Source OECD for researchers and students in institutions subscribed to our online library, and through the OECD Online Bookshop for individuals who wish to browse titles free-of-charge.

So no SPACEBROTHER, I’m not going to get all excited about Ron Paul joining a unanimous and benevolent, and customary Congressional vote for the US recognizing Israel’s acceptence into the OECD.

And on HR 5842, it’s interesting that you didn’t copy and paste over the date of HR5842, which was 30 years ago in 1979. The constitutional bill to decline giving US taxpayer dollars to Iranian students I would say was unnecessary, but it would be understandable as this was two weeks after Iranian students captured 66 American hostages.

It’s a little odd this coming from an Obama supporter, Obama who is in command of three carrier task forces (complete with an arsenal of locked on nuclear tipped missles), right now parked off Irans beaches, while he repeatedly shakes his “everything’s on the table” sword at the Iranian government. …meanwhile the one you are attacking (RP) is famous for speaking out and voting against Obama’s wars as well as against Obama’s imflammatory posture against Iran.

So no, I’m not going to get excited about 1979’s HR 5842.

So finally, I approach the end of answering (and reanswering) your spam.

I think all antiwar people would like that link a lot, I'd recommend they click it...

It’s difficult to know how you came up with that title for this link, it doesn’t mention BP at all. It does talk about the oil spill, and RP correctly states that it’s unfortunate that the US National Guard is off fighting wars in other parts of the world…Ron Paul laments:

RON PAUL: “If all the states had their Guards back maybe we’d have enough manpower to clean up the beaches and prevent this oil from coming in.”

What’s wrong with that?

Furthermore, we didn’t have enough Guard over here after Katrina, not only Guard manpower, but all the National guard heavy equipment and medical and water trucks and all the other equipment that's over in Iraq instead of Lousiana where it belongs.

Ron Paul's right, we need our National Guard in the US where it belongs, and that would be a big help for the oil cleanup.

And with regards to RP’s comments in the link sticking up for Shee’s gut reaction statement that Afghanastan is Obama’s war, what the fuck is wrong with saying that? I say we need MORE people saying that…

In your attack link RP says the media should not jump on people for saying “Afghanastan is Obama’s war,” and that it truth. Also RP agrees YES it IS Obama’s war:

He said Obama fought to get the tripling of troops over there…he said “Look what progressive Democrats have to put up with, why is it not good political talk to say the truth? It is Obama’s war, and he comments that most americans agree with this truth…RP goes on to comment:

“Here’s Obama trying to appeal to the progressive base saying: we’ll be out in a year...…while at the same time Obama appeals to the neocons saying we want more war, I’ll take all the troops I can get because we’re gonna win this war….but at the same time the truth is the politicians and military do not believe there is a chance of military victory.”

So what’s wrong with that? I say the RP’s comments on wishing more National Guard manpower was available to help clean up the oil is a good thing, and most of the rest of the video pointing out how destructive and pointless prosecuting Obama’s Afpak wars is something any antiwar person would be happy with…difficult to know why you posted such a favorable anti-war video of RP as an attack, and titled it about BP. I’d say any antiwar person would like to click on that video, I’d recommend it.

And finally, I’m running out of time, but just to mention I’m not so fond of Rand. He’s off my research rader as he’s from a different state, but I think he failed the moral test of sending troops into Afghanastan, I need more clarification, but I think he said he would have been for sending special forces into afghanastan after 9/11 which would be a violation of international law and the Constitution. I need more clarification but if that’s true, I can’t support him.

So there’s your questions, fully answered…again.

Maybe you’ll keep your word and answer my one question:

How do you get off saying you don’t consiously vote for war escallations when you vote for and support Obama and his huge war escallations?

Voting and supporting the escallation of the killing of literally thousands of innocent people who mean you no harm, then to hide it away and not tell people what you’re telling people to vote for, while at the same time smearing antiwar politicians who voted against the invasions, and against every single war up-funding bill. Rejecting those who will stop the wars while voting for escallation in senseless killing of our innocent brothers, how ugly can a man get?

_________________Lesser-evilism is war.

Last edited by baddy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I highly recommend you don't read this post because the method that SPACEBROTHER is trying to get away with is to avoid answering my key question by throwing out an explosion of distraction to get people to be so sick of seeing his snowstorm (or even get people to blame me for debunking some of it), that he successfully gets away from answering the one key question I have asked, (that he cannot answer).

So it's not necessary to read this post; this post is only to service SPACEBROTHER:

I wrote that so that I could answer SPACEBROTHERS continuing attacks without others having to read it read it.

It's awful that war voters can use argument tactics like spam snowstorms when they get questioned on their war voting to get away with promoting the escallation of killing of thousands of our innocent brothers.

Someone should stand up for them, instead of just laying down and allowing it to continue.

What would you have me do rope? I challenged him on his war voting, and instead of answering, he launched a massive spam attack.

What would you have me do? Just give up on the thousands if innocents who will die due to his war escallation voting advice?

Should I just give up on them and just say, that's OK that SPACEBROTHER wants to vote to escallate their killings, I don't mind? I should say it's OK and look the other way when he advises to vote to kill thousands of my innocent brothers because it's too much spam to deal with him?

It's too much spam to challenge him, so they're just gonna have to die?

What would you have me do rope?

I do agree with you though, it is ugly. It's nasty looking into the face of the cause of war.

What would you suggest, I'm all ears. I think I have gotten all I need from him now, it's not necessary that he answers the question because his non-answer is answer enough, (as long as answering his questions again above stops his baddy attacks, I reserve the right to answer every twelvth one).

Is that all we need to do when someone asks is a key question about our political positions that we cannot answer, just launch a giant snowstorm about everything except answering the question? Is that a good argument tactic?

What would you suggest I do rope? I've tried staying away (how many times did he continue to attack me while I was gone for a week and a half?), I've tried to answer him while advising all others NOT TO READ the posts...if people are told not to read them, should they complain if they do? (Also, saying OK to war voting advice is not an option).

What would you suggest I do with this little problem?

What would you suggest I do?

I'm all ears.

(I do agree with arcee's advice and will likely follow it now that I have enough from SPACEBROTHER).

_________________Lesser-evilism is war.

Last edited by baddy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A simple YES or NO would have sufficed. Thats all I asked for. You answered NO, you DO NOT denounce Ron Paul for his acceptance of money from war-profiteering corporations and his pro-war and preemptive war votes?

As far as RP being supposedly strongest in anti-war votes, I will always be convinced that it is a ruse based on his other yes votes. These two aren't the only pro-war/pro-escalation votes RP has voted yes on over the years by the way. Also, he has quite a long laundry voting record list that covers the gammut of pro-corporate, anti-choice, ect ect....

Ron Paul introduces three pro-life bills

H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.777: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.1548: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.AMDT.1003 (A024): Amendment no. 17 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funding for abortion, family planning, or population control efforts.

H.AMDT.380 (A022): An amendment no. 9 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funding for population control or population planning programs; family planning activities; or abortion procedures.

H.AMDT.312 (A011): An amendment, printed as amendment No. 32 in the Congressional Record of July 16, 1997, to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in the bill for Family Planning, birth control or abortion.

H.R.4984: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for the Peace Corps to be used for travel expenses of individuals in order for abortions to be performed on those individuals.

-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person

H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

H.R.392: A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life.

-- He would deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. This would also limit the cross-state recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of these bills he cynically calls this the "We the People Act".

H.R.300: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.4379: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.5739: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.3893: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.1547: To restore first amendment protections of religion and religious speech.

H.R.4922: To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

H.R.5078: To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

-- This includes limits on courts' hearing cases related to abortion, and he has introduced bills specific to these kinds of cases. He also uses the deceptive term "partial-birth abortion".

H.R.1545: To prohibit Federal officials from paying any Federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions.

H.R.1546: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

H.R.2875: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

H.R.3400: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

H.R.3691: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear partial-birth abortion-related cases.

H.R.15169: A bill to eliminate the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to certain abortion cases.

-- Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag

H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

H.J.RES.82: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

LAWS IMPROVING THE LOT OF THE WORKING CLASS

-- He has tried to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act:

H.R.2310: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

H.R.13264: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

-- He would like to make it much easier to decertify labor unions:

H.R.694: To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit elections to decertify representation by a labor organization.

-- He opposes the Minimum Wage:

H.R.2962: A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.

-- He would deny the prevailing wage to employees of federal contractors, and remove prohibition on kickbacks in Federal projects:

H.R.736: To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.

H.R.2720: To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.

-- He wants to severely weaken Social Security:

H.R.2030: A bill to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to make social security coverage completely optional for both present and future workers, to freeze benefit levels, to provide for the partial financing of future benefits from general revenues subject to specified conditions, to eliminate the earnings test, to make changes in the tax treatment of IRA accounts, and for other purposes.

H.R.4604: A bill to repeal the recently enacted requirement of mandatory social security coverage for employees of nonprofit organizations.

VOTER ISSUES

-- He has come out against attempts to make the United States more democratic, including the idea of eliminating the Electoral College, even *after* the debacle in the 2000 Presidential election:

H.CON.RES.48: Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.

H.CON.RES.443: Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.

-- He wants to repeal the "Motor Voter" Act, which has made it easier for people to register to vote.

H.R.2139: To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

CORPORATE POWER

-- He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.

H.R.1247: To ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by exempting health care professionals from the Federal antitrust laws in their negotiations with health plans and health insurance issuers.

H.R.1789: To restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law commonly referred to as "antitrust law", and for other purposes.

-- He would gut the regulatory power of Federal agencies, forcing Congress to micromanage all decisions:

H.R.1204: A bill to an Act to restore the rule of law.

DISCRIMINATION

-- He has tried to make it easier for racial and ethnic discrimination in our society:

H.R.3863: A bill to provide that the Internal Revenue Service may not implement certain proposed rules relating to the determination of whether private schools have discriminatory policies.

H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.

H.R.4982: A bill to provide for civil rights in public schools.

-- He would propose an amendment to the Constitution to gut the Fourteenth Amendment by denying citizenship to people born here whose parents aren't already citizens "nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States". That latter part could produce some serious political discrimination, especially if radicals can have their citizenship revoked:

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

H.J.RES.42: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

-- He would limit or try to repeal various environmental protection laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the use of devices that protect the "bycatch" of sea life:

H.J.RES.104: To disapprove a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to proposed revisions to the national pollutant discharge elimination system program and Federal antidegradation policy and the proposed revisions to the water quality planning and management regulations concerning total maximum daily load.

H.R.3735: To disapprove a rule requiring the use of bycatch reduction devices in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.

H.R.4423: To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide that the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery shall be managed in accordance with such fishery management plans, regulations, and other conservation and management as applied to that fishery on April 13, 1998.

H.R.2504: A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to postpone for one year the application of certain restrictions to areas which have failed to attain national ambient air quality standards and to delay for one year the date required for adoption and submission of State implementation plans applicable to these areas, and for other purposes.

H.R.7079: A bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.

H.R.7245: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.

Ron Paul also has a lot of bills relating to the shrimp industry and trying to block competition. Maybe he's in their pocket?

-- He would promote offshore oil-drilling, the construction of more refineries, coal-mining on Federal lands, and block conservation measures. This would further threaten our coastal and internal environments, and further trap our economy in fossil-fuel dependency:

H.R.2415: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

H.R.4004: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

H.R.393: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.

H.R.4639: A bill to repeal all Federal regulations and taxes on the production of fuel.

H.R.5293: A bill to prohibit the imposition of unreasonable severance taxes or fees on coal or lignite mined from Federal lands.

H.R.6936: A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from promulgating any federal emergency energy conservation plan which would restrict recreational boating.

-- He has fought ratification of the Law of the Sea. As President would he "un-sign" it? [More here.]

H.CON.RES.56: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND MILITARY ISSUES

-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

H.R.1665: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

H.R.3769: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

-- He would continue U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, despite the usefulness of this body for prosecuting war-crimes that are not challenged domestically.

H.R.1154: To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

H.AMDT.480 (A010): An amendment numbered 9 printed in part A of House Report 107-450 to prohibit funds authorized in the bill from being used to assist, cooperate with, or provide any support to the International Criminal Court.

H.R.4169: To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

H.CON.RES.23: Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.

H.RES.416: Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court.

-- He has promoted the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, and otherwise sought limit the protections of international law. He would also prohibit U.S. courts from citing foreign laws or policies (other than English ones) in their decisions:

H.J.RES.1028: A resolution proposing the Bricker amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and executive agreements.

H.J.RES.492: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and Executive agreements.

H.CON.RES.49: Expressing the sense of Congress that the Treaty Power of the President does not extend beyond the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, but are limited by the Constitution, and any exercise of such Executive Power inconsistent with the Constitution shall be of no legal force or effect.

H.R.4118: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

H.R.1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

-- He would end U.S. participation in the United Nations. Failing that he would prohibit or severely curtail appropriations for U.S. payments to the U.N. or its affiliated agencies. Please note that isolationism is not the same as anti-imperialism:

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.285 (A038): An amendment numbered 11 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit use of funds in the bill to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.190 (A024): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for any U.S. contribution to the UN or any affiliated agency of the UN.

H.AMDT.191 (A025): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for use toward any U.S. contribution for UN peacekeeping operations.

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.306 (A006): Amendment sought to eliminate the authorization of funding for any United Nations program.

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.138 (A010): Amendment sought to provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

H.R.1146: To provide for complete withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

H.R.3890: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.

H.R.3891: A bill to terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.

H.R.6358: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.

H.R.14788: A bill to limit U.S. contributions to the United Nations.

-- Not having any success there, he has worked to block U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization:

H.CON.RES.132: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should formally withdraw its membership from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

H.CON.RES.4: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

H.CON.RES.443: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should formally withdraw its membership from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

H.CON.RES.489: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

-- Would he pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.

-- Oh, but he would "protect" U.S. soldiers from wearing any insignia of another country or the U.N.

H.R.4797: To protect America's citizen soldiers.

-- Would he try to re-establish U.S. "sovereignty" over the Panama Canal? As I recall, the Canal Treaty was a major concern of the far Right back in the 1970's and 1980's:

H.CON.RES.231: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.

H.RES.1410: A resolution in support of continued undiluted U.S. sovereignty and jurisdiction over the U.S.-owned Canal Zone on the Isthmus of Panama.

H.R.2522: A bill to prohibit the use of any United States funds to implement the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 unless the use of those funds for that purpose is hereafter expressly provided for by the Congress and to prohibit the transfer to the Republic of Panama any territory or other property of the United States in the Canal Zone unless the Congress hereafter enacts legislation which expressly authorizes such transfer.

A GUN FREE-FOR-ALL

-- He would allow more guns in schools and National Parks, repeal requirements for background checks and gun-locks, use Federal authority to nullify state laws regarding concealed weapons, and eliminate many other regulations including prohibitions on gun possession by minors, recent felons, fugitives, addicts, and domestic abusers, and prohibitions relating to semiautomatic weapons:

H.R.2424: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

H.R.1897: To protect the second amendment rights of individuals to carry firearms in units of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

H. R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.1703: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.3125: To protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

H.R.153: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.1762: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.1179: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.407: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

H.R.2721: To restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.2722: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State.

H.R.1147: To repeal the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

H.R.3892: A bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

H.R.3892: A bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

H.R.2311 A bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

H.R.14768: A bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

EDUCATION POLICY

-- Speaking of schools, he would weaken educational standards by using Federal power to interfere with states improving their standards for teacher certification:

H.R.966: To prohibit the Federal Government from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.

H.R.1706: To prohibit the Federal Government from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.

H.R.4653: A bill to prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.

TAX POLICY

-- He wants to dramatically reduce the tax obligations of people who make inordinately high incomes and who inherit large fortunes they did not earn. Specifically, this includes attempts to repeal the estate tax, and to apply one tax rate to all income levels.

H.J.RES.23: Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.14: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.45: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.81: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.116: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.R.5484: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for the taxation of certain income at the flat rate of 10 percent and to repeal the estate tax.

H.R.2137: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that a 10-percent income tax rate shall apply to all individuals, and to repeal all deductions, credits, and exclusions for individuals other than an exemption of $10,000.

H.R.1664: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that a 10-percent income tax rate shall apply to all individuals and to increase the deduction for personal exemptions from $1,000 to $2,500.

H.J.RES.23: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.R.6352: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that a 10 percent income tax rate shall apply to all individuals, and to repeal all deductions, credits, and exclusions for individuals other than an exemption of $10,000.

H.R.4569: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to repeal the estate and gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers.

H.R.15619: A bill to repeal the estate tax.

-- And short of that he wants us to pay our income taxes every month, and not use withholding.

H.R.1364: To restore to taxpayers awareness of the true cost of government by eliminating the withholding of income taxes by employers and requiring individuals to pay income taxes in monthly installments, and for other purposes.

H.R.4855: To restore to taxpayers awareness of the true cost of government by eliminating the withholding of income taxes by employers and requiring individuals to pay income taxes in monthly installments, and for other purposes.

Finally, the even weirder parts of Ron Paul's record:

GOLD! GOLD! GOLD!

-- What is his obsession with gold, and does this make for sound economic policy?

H.R.3101: To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the establishment of a precious metals investment option in the Thrift Savings Fund.

H.R.3732: To amend title 31, United States Code, to limit the use by the President and the Secretary of the Treasury of the Exchange Stabilization Fund to buy or sell gold without congressional approval, and for other purposes.

H.R.4226: A bill to provide for the minting of gold coins and silver coins by the United States.

H.R.1662: A bill to provide for the minting of American Gold Eagle coins pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

H.R.1663: A bill to provide for the minting of American Gold Eagle coins pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

H.R.878: A bill to execute Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

H.R.391: A bill to repeal the privilege of banks to create money.

H.R.3862: A bill to provide for a full assay, inventory, and audit of the gold reserves of the United States, and for other purposes.

H.R.3349: A bill to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to strike and sell gold medallions to the general public.

H.R.2658: A bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to terminate the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to require the delivery of gold to the Treasurer of the United States, which shall be known as The Gold Ownership Act of 1979.

H.R.5605: A bill to amend the Trading with the Enemy Act.

H.R.5658: A bill to make Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes redeemable in gold.

H.R.6217: A bill to prohibit the sale of gold bullion by any agency of the United States unless specifically authorized by law.

H.R.6297: A bill to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to strike and sell gold medallions to the general public.

H.R.7874: A bill to repeal the privilege of banks to create money.

H.R.6054: A bill to provide for the minting of the American Eagle gold coin pursuant to article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

-- He might even try to get rid of the Federal Reserve, which has long been a bogeyman of the far right:

H.R.2778: To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

H.R.5356: To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

H.R.1148: To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

H.R.875: A bill to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.

H.R.876: A bill to repeal section 105(b) of the Monetary Control Act of 1980.

H.R.4652: A bill to provide that no officer or employee of the United States shall change the design of Federal reserve notes unless such change is specifically authorized by Federal law.

-- Does he want to abandon the dollar and set up 50 separate state currencies? Does that even make sense?

H.R.2779: To repeal section 5103 of title 31, United States Code.

H.R.3931: A bill to amend the Coinage Act of 1965 to provide that coins and currencies of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations, shall be legal tender only for the payment of Federal taxes, duties and dues.

OMNIBUS REACTIONARY

-- He has favored all manner of other right-wing policies, in the following case with a single bill, which includes provisions for such things as supporting corporal punishment, requiring that young people seeking reproductive care have their parents notified, allowing churches and religious organizations that run "public" services to discriminate against potential clients, and moving us back to school segregation.

H.R.7955: A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.

You said you do not consiously vote to escallate wars. How do you get off voting for Obama and giving advice to vote for Obama who has greatly escallated the wars?

I answered your questions multiple times, and got my ass in a sling for answering your snowstorm...while you said you'd be happy to discuss my question if I answered yours...well I answered yours again...and all I see is another copied and pasted spam attack above. You reneged again.

more pro-war votes....-- Would he pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.

And to answer your question again, it's still a resounding NO. I know you don't like my answer and "Dont give a fuck" (your words, not mine)

Brief explanation....US to be out of Iraq by 2011. Thats not an escallation. On the other side, if we are still there in a military capacity after 2011, my views of Obama WILL change 180 degrees. Afghanistan on the other hand technically isn't an escallation, it's a redeployment. Ultimately, (though admittedly I don't have the numbers in front of me right this moment) I believe there are less troops on the ground now (in Iraq and Afghanistan combined) than before Obama was sworn in. Thats not an escallation either, thats a draw down.

I'll repeat this because the likeliness that Baddy is going to gloss over it again is pretty high.....The answer is still a resounding NO.

I accept your answer....I (Baddy) DO NOT denounce Ron Paul for his acceptance of money from war-profiteering corporations and his pro-war and preemptive war votes.

You have addressed Ron Pauls pro-war-pro-preemptive war votes, albeit attempted to explain yourself around them but they are what they are.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum